Dataset Information

Lower-dose vs high-dose oral estradiol therapy of hormone receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer: a phase 2 randomized study.

ABSTRACT: Estrogen deprivation therapy with aromatase inhibitors has been hypothesized to paradoxically sensitize hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer tumor cells to low-dose estradiol therapy.To determine whether 6 mg of estradiol (daily) is a viable therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced aromatase inhibitor-resistant hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.A phase 2 randomized trial of 6 mg vs 30 mg of oral estradiol used daily (April 2004-February 2008 [enrollment closed]). Eligible patients (66 randomized) had metastatic breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor with progression-free survival (> or = 24 wk) or relapse (after > or = 2 y) of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor use. Patients at high risk of estradiol-related adverse events were excluded. Patients were examined after 1 and 2 weeks for clinical and laboratory toxicities and flare reactions and thereafter every 4 weeks. Tumor radiological assessment occurred every 12 weeks. At least 1 measurable lesion or 4 measurable lesions (bone-only disease) were evaluated for tumor response.Randomization to receive 1 oral 2-mg generic estradiol tablet 3 times daily or five 2-mg tablets 3 times daily.Primary end point: clinical benefit rate (response plus stable disease at 24 weeks).toxicity, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, quality of life, and the predictive properties of the metabolic flare reaction detected by positron emission tomography/computed tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose F 18.The adverse event rate (> or = grade 3) in the 30-mg group (11/32 [34%]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23%-47%) was higher than in the 6-mg group (4/34 [18%]; 95% CI, 5%-22%; P = .03). Clinical benefit rates were 9 of 32 (28%; 95% CI, 18%-41%) in the 30-mg group and 10 of 34 (29%; 95% CI, 19%-42%) in the 6-mg group. An estradiol-stimulated increase in fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 uptake (> or = 12% prospectively defined) was predictive of response (positive predictive value, 80%; 95% CI, 61%-92%). Seven patients with estradiol-sensitive disease were re-treated with aromatase inhibitors at estradiol progression, among which 2 had partial response and 1 had stable disease, suggesting resensitization to estrogen deprivation.In women with advanced breast cancer and acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors, a daily dose of 6 mg of estradiol provided a similar clinical benefit rate as 30 mg, with fewer serious adverse events. The efficacy of treatment with the lower dose should be further examined in phase 3 clinical trials.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00324259.

SUBMITTER: Ellis MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3460383 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lower-dose vs high-dose oral estradiol therapy of hormone receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer: a phase 2 randomized study.

Ellis Matthew J MJ Gao Feng F Dehdashti Farrokh F Jeffe Donna B DB Marcom P Kelly PK Carey Lisa A LA Dickler Maura N MN Silverman Paula P Fleming Gini F GF Kommareddy Aruna A Jamalabadi-Majidi S S Crowder Robert R Siegel Barry A BA

JAMA 20090801 7

<h4>Context</h4>Estrogen deprivation therapy with aromatase inhibitors has been hypothesized to paradoxically sensitize hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer tumor cells to low-dose estradiol therapy.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether 6 mg of estradiol (daily) is a viable therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced aromatase inhibitor-resistant hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.<h4>Design, setting, and patients</h4>A phase 2 randomized trial of 6 mg vs 30 mg of oral estradiol used ...[more]

PMID: 19690310

Similar Datasets

Project description:LESSONS LEARNED:Studies targeting the androgen receptor (AR) signaling pathway in aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant breast cancer are limited. Bicalutamide, one of the commonly used AR inhibitors in prostate cancer, in combination with AI, did not show synergistic activity in patients with estrogen receptor-positive and AI-resistant disease in this phase II, single-arm study. The clinical benefit rate and objective response rate at 6 months were 16.7% and 0%, respectively, and the study was terminated after the first stage. BACKGROUND:Endocrine resistance is a major problem in clinical practice. Studies have shown that androgen receptor (AR) signaling activation may be one of the mechanisms, and targeting AR showed some promising results in AR-positive triple-negative breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of bicalutamide plus another aromatase inhibitor in patients with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) or steroidal AI resistance and estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and AR-positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS:A Simon's two-stage, phase II, single-arm study was conducted. We assumed the clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 40% would be significant in clinical practice. In this case, if ?4 patients of the 19 patients in the first stage benefited from treatment, the CBR would achieve the assumed endpoint. If fewer than four patients benefited from treatment in the first stage, the trial would be terminated. All patients received bicalutamide 50 mg per day orally plus another aromatase inhibitor. The primary outcome was CBR; secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and tolerability. RESULTS:A total of 19 patients enrolled in the first stage, and 18 patients met all criteria for analysis. The trial terminated according to protocol after the first stage. After a median follow-up of 14 months, the CBR at 6 months was 16.7% (3/18); no patients with partial or complete response were observed. The median PFS was 2.7 months. Bicalutamide in combination with AI was well tolerated. CONCLUSION:Bicalutamide in combination with another AI did not show synergistic activity in patients with ER-positive breast cancer and AI resistance. Results suggest that no more large-sample clinical trials should be conducted in this population for overcoming endocrine resistance.

Project description:Importance: Little is known about the comparative cardiovascular safety of oral hormone therapy products, which impedes women from making informed safety decisions about hormone therapy to treat menopausal symptoms.Objective: To compare the relative clinical cardiovascular safety of 2 commonly used oral estrogen drugs-conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) and estradiol.Design, setting, and participants: Population-based, case-control study from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2009, comparing cardiovascular event risk associated with current CEEs and estradiol use in a large health maintenance organization in which the preferred formulary estrogen changed from CEEs to estradiol during the course of data collection. Participants were 384 postmenopausal women aged 30 to 79 years using oral hormone therapy.Main outcomes and measures: Incident venous thrombosis was the primary clinical outcome, and incident myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke were secondary outcomes. As validation, an intermediate clotting phenotype, the endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratio, was measured in plasma of controls.Results: We studied 68 venous thrombosis, 67 myocardial infarction, and 48 ischemic stroke cases, with 201 matched controls; all participants were current users of oral CEEs or estradiol. In adjusted analyses, current oral CEEs use compared with current oral estradiol use was associated with an increased venous thrombosis risk (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.02-4.27; P = .045) and an increased myocardial infarction risk that did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.91-3.84; P = .09) and was not associated with ischemic stroke risk (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.31; P = .74). Among 140 controls, CEEs users compared with estradiol users had higher endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratios (P < .001), indicating a stronger clotting propensity.Conclusions and relevance: In an observational study of oral hormone therapy users, CEEs use was associated with a higher risk of incident venous thrombosis and possibly myocardial infarction than estradiol use. This risk differential was supported by biologic data. These findings need replication and suggest that various oral estrogen drugs may be associated with different levels of cardiovascular risk.

Project description:Resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer is associated with activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) intracellular signaling pathway. In early studies, the mTOR inhibitor everolimus added to endocrine therapy showed antitumor activity.In this phase 3, randomized trial, we compared everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane and placebo (randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio) in 724 patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who had recurrence or progression while receiving previous therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting or to treat advanced disease (or both). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included survival, response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed by an independent data and safety monitoring committee after 359 progression-free survival events were observed.Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two study groups. The median age was 62 years, 56% had visceral involvement, and 84% had hormone-sensitive disease. Previous therapy included letrozole or anastrozole (100%), tamoxifen (48%), fulvestrant (16%), and chemotherapy (68%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were stomatitis (8% in the everolimus-plus-exemestane group vs. 1% in the placebo-plus-exemestane group), anemia (6% vs. <1%), dyspnea (4% vs. 1%), hyperglycemia (4% vs. <1%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), and pneumonitis (3% vs. 0%). At the interim analysis, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with everolimus plus exemestane and 2.8 months with placebo plus exemestane, according to assessments by local investigators (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.54; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months and 4.1 months, respectively, according to central assessment (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47; P<0.001).Everolimus combined with an aromatase inhibitor improved progression-free survival in patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. (Funded by Novartis; BOLERO-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00863655.).

Dataset Information

Lower-dose vs high-dose oral estradiol therapy of hormone receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer: a phase 2 randomized study.

Publications

Lower-dose vs high-dose oral estradiol therapy of hormone receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer: a phase 2 randomized study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets